Political Animal
Blog
In retrospect, maybe Newt Gingrich shouldn’t have based so much of his campaign on attacking Freddie Mac.
During a debate last week, after Gingrich spent some time railing against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, John Harwood reminded the Republican candidate that he was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac five years ago. Gingrich insisted that he’s “never done any lobbying,” but was paid for his advice “as a historian.” He was paid, the candidate said, to tell Freddie Mac officials that their business model was “insane.”
Gingrich’s story has unraveled ever since. For one thing, he never complained to Freddie Mac officials about their business model. For another, Gingrich’s work appeared to be consulting on the housing giant’s lobbying strategy.
And today we learn that Gingrich was actually paid far more than previously reported.
Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. […]
Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.
His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.
If Freddie Mac paid Newt Gingrich between $1.6 million and $1.8 million to consult on its lobbying strategy, then, yes, maybe its business model really was “insane.”
At this point, is there any doubt that Gingrich’s explanation last week was plainly untrue, or are we sill supposed to believe that he was paid at least $1.6 million to put on his “historian” hat and assess Freddie Mac’s operation?
Facebook
Twitter
Danp on November 16, 2011 9:34 AM:
This story isn't complete without knowing what issues Freddie Mac was lobbying for, which congressmen they focused on, what bills those congressmen proposed and who voted for them. I find it hard to imagine that they hired Gingrich to focus on Dems, but it is more interesting that Freddie Mac is one of the two villains Republicans blame for all things financial.
Kathryn on November 16, 2011 9:36 AM:
For the handful of people who read newspapers, this is not news. The exact amounts he collected lobbying is news but that every time he opens his trap a lie falls out, that's not news. Hard to conjure up a more revolting excuse for a human being than Newt. Mitt's trying hard though.
walt on November 16, 2011 9:36 AM:
Gingrich's ascendant star has about two weeks left before it implodes into the black hole that is Gingrich the human being. Of all the creeps, idiots, and yahoos that the Republican Party offers as savior of the month, Gingrich bears the least scrutiny. He's almost a comic book version of the stereotypical right-wing pig: pompous, vile, and utterly dishonest.
Richard on November 16, 2011 9:36 AM:
That did not take long. Seems Newt is still Newt. Next up?
Todd for VT House on November 16, 2011 9:38 AM:
So when's this spin going to be floated: yeah, he took lots of money from Freddie, and look, he still railed against them, proving his independence and moral forthrightnessicitude!
TR on November 16, 2011 9:41 AM:
Thanks for keeping on this, Steve, but you really need to keep reminding people that even if Freddie and Fannie were looking to pay an historian such a ridiculous amount of money for historical advice, there is absolutely no way they would pick Newt Gingrich.
He received his degree in European history, wrote a dissertation on education policies in the Belgian Congo, and failed to do anything noteworthy in the profession, not getting tenure and leaving it all behind 25 years ago.
We need to keep reminding people (especially in the media) of these facts, because (a) it shows Gingrich is full of shit when he claims he was paid by F&F as an historian and (b) it shows that his general professorial air is all an act.
He never accomplished anything as a professor or as an historian, but he puffs out his chest and lectures everyone else like he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't. At all.
c u n d gulag on November 16, 2011 9:44 AM:
Paying Newt for his historical knowledge would be the equivalent of paying fat Elvis to teach ballet.
Next: The chinless wonder - Frothy Fecal Matter Boy!
Speed on November 16, 2011 9:52 AM:
For those of us who remember the REAL history of the last decade, the GOP promoted the idea of home ownership because in their minds people who own vote Republican, people who rent vote Democrat. So they tried to get low-income people and minorities to buy homes in the hope that they would become instant Republicans.
Now they're trying to run away from all of that and rewrite history.
martin on November 16, 2011 9:55 AM:
This should be pretty easy to solve. Newt, show us the contract(s). Show us the work product. Let's start asking all of the candidates if they believe Newt was hired as an "historian." For that matter, let's see his grades and diplomas.
psychobroad on November 16, 2011 9:58 AM:
Kathryn beat me to it, but I'll say it anyway: Newt opens his mouth and a lie falls out. Alert the media!
T2 on November 16, 2011 10:04 AM:
nobody's gonna care about this.......it is the Republican way-Rich get Richer. And sure, he lied about it. But that is the Republican way too....
This will be a non-issue.
Bob M on November 16, 2011 10:13 AM:
"wrote a dissertation on education policies in the Belgian Congo"
Talk about cowardice. He chose a subject so remote that no one could challenge him.
Chi-chi-chi-chick-en.
rrk1 on November 16, 2011 10:17 AM:
Newt's shameless mendacity is no secret. His presidential ambitions have always been more about his checkbook, than a policy book. No one is probably more surprised that he leads, or is about to lead, the pack of Rethug clowns wanting to be nominated than himself. This wasn't supposed to happen. He has no campaign apparatus left, his fundraising is in neutral, and his angry tirades are so, so yesterday. Just where can he go?
I doubt he'll last two weeks, except who from the clown circus will be the next not-Romney? We've watched Perry, Bachmann, and Cain crater. Christie refusedto play. Will Ron Paul really get a shot? The media has dismissed him. Huntsman? Can't make the poll needle move, but media might try to make him a contender. Santorum? Well, what can one say.
Better put in a call to the bullpen.
sparky on November 16, 2011 10:58 AM:
The definition of a newt includes a description which says they're small slimy creatures usually found living under rocks or rotting wood. I would say that Mr. gingrich pretty well fits that description and, in time he'll be advised to crawl back under his rock. In the meantime he'll make lots of money selling his books and laying the groundwork for future work for Faux news.